I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.

I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.

It is an amazing lens, a little expensive honestly for what it is, a lot of plastic in the construction, no IS (for whoever find that a letdown), but probably the best "normal" zoom around. I used the word "probably" because I haven't tested ALL normal zoom around, so I cannot speak for the Tamron or others.

+1....received the lens before my trip to Hong Kong. I will have some pics after I get back. So far, this lens is SHARP end to end.

I will visit Lantau Island and Victoria Peak in Hong Kong today. Kinda miss my 16-35 II for landscape though

GLPhotographic

I think there may be some slight variation in the first batch, based on my experience, which isn't conclusive - (could be a one off). First lens I received #(000061) was soft at 70mm f/2.8, had a hazy appearance on focus area. even once calibrated with lens align2 I wasn't blown away (I had the Tamron 24-70 vc and returned it because of back focusing and poor AF quality & speed).

Even though I wasn't wowed by the first copy it, it was better than the tamron, in every way. I still returned the canon the following day, considering the price, I wanted AMAZING. I was lucky that my store had a second copy of the lens yet to be sold (000063) which they kindly exchanged.

Now I am super impressed, amazingly SHARP @ F2.8 at every zoom length across the entire frame, which is inline with what Roger at Lens rentals reports. no micro adjustment required. (after doing the usual lens align procedure).DID all sorts of exhaustive tests, and real life shots, I am wrapped with the build quality, operation, and images which come from the lens....I don't know if there is slight variation between copies, but this is my experience (first copy compared to second) and could reflect the photo zone findings.

The onion bokeh is there under certain circumstances, but its allot cleaner than that of the Tamrons, and isn't noticeable unless pixel peeping. doesn't concern me in the slightest. I think the bokeh is wonderful, very similar characteristics to the 50L1.2.lack of fringing and CA is great. colour and contrast is wonderful.

70mm f/4:24-70 II: 3459 and 2654 and 0.6224-70 I: 3001 and 2725 and 0.6324-105: 3363 and 2318 and 0.76

yeah really tragic there, it merely blow the other two zooms away hah

ok sure the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and f/4 IS and 2.8 IS II and 70-300L beat it (and maybe blow it away at far edges) at 70mm but none of the standard zooms (that are harder to build) do, maybe for $2300 it should also match those in every way at 70mm, I don't know, but it gives the best wide side (and even long side wide open) from a standard zoom....

download the full images, save, flip between them in a viewer, the edges look noticeably better to me from one of them (hint: the canon )

(to be fair, we don't know exactly how he focused these and that can affect things, but still in a quick real world pop snap one certainly did better)

My observations:

I'd say that the Canon has the resolution advantage in the centre, the Tamron in the extreme corners (who cares?), but Canon has much better contrast. The colour balance of the lenses is very different -the Canon is more natural than the Tamron, which is quite yellow. It's difficult to tell in these photos as they are shot at different times of the day with varying cloud cover. The Tamron has noticably less distortion than the Canon.

These shots were taken at f/9; lets compare them at f/2.8: if you want to shoot at f/9, buy a 24-105 F/4L. Sadly, Photozone doesn't have any f/2.8 shots at the same focal length. [This is something that I always find strange considering the purpose of the site, surely they'd be better to have some standard outdoor test setups for various focal length/aperture combinations?] Until some more real world samples appear, we're left with The Digital Picture's ISO 12233 chart tests:

Fine, but I always find it difficult to relate this sort of test shot to the real world and they are taken at quite close distance, which some lenses don't perform well at [see Bryan's comments about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which every user raves about (including Bryan) but underwhelms on these charts].

It is interesting to hear about the performance of 24-70 mk I and 24-70 mk II in real life testing. So far I have been very satisfied with the Mark I myself (bought last year), and wondered what could be coming up next.

When Mark II was announced with very high MTF, I thought Canon may have shifted the weighing of some characteristics during the design of this lens to accomplish the drawing capability design goal.

Apparently, the older lens traded field curvature at 24 mm for comparatively small amount of distortion. Additional changes in the drawing capability of the new lens seem to have caused the maximum reproduction ratio to decrease actually substantially from the old one, and also bokeh seems to be worse on the new lens.

What it comes to investing in the new lens, I don't know as it does not have exactly the same performance in other areas. Mark I for me seems to be a bit more all-rounder, so I do think there might be some interest in the second hand markets for this lens for a relatively long period due to aforementioned properties.

Ha! The Onion Rings! I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

I'd really like to know how many people who'd never gotten the Tamron because of the horrible onion rings now will say that it's actually not that bad, that a zoom can never be a prime and the problem occurs only in specific shots :->

The mk2 may be more worthwhile on a high mp camera due to increased sharpness, and for heavy-duty event photogs that need the fastest af and more durability (which the mk2 has over the mk1 due to lensrentals).

For the rest of us, Canon should be renamed as the "$500 too much company" (5d3, 6d, 24-70ii) :-o

Just had to look it up myself. the position of the zoom/focus rings are swapped from the normal orientation, but they operate in the same direction. it's the direction that would drive me nuts, i bet i can get over their positions being swapped. Reminds me how i swapped my gear shifting direction lever on my bike. 1 down 5 up, or 1 up 5 down. no big deal, but one time when i got in a bit too hot i did go the wrong way. i guess i was overloaded, but i worked it out. anyhow, continue the 24-70 doubting....

My point, I suppose, is that if there is so much sample variation between lenses, it kind of makes lens reviews completely pointless. They are reviewing that particular copy ( or batch ) or a lens, rather than the product as a whole. Maybe, we expect everything we buy to be perfect, or maybe those of us who prowl these forums are just perfectionists ( count me in )

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.

And not only that, they mount it to a camera, so you are seeing a combination of camera and lens. If the camera mount tolerance and the lens mount tolerance are additive, the result will be visible.A lens testers life is tough, but Klauss is one of the best, so I'm confident that the results are good for the lens he tested. Some of Roger's tests on his Lens rentals site clearly show the large amount of sample variation that he often finds.http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variationAs you can see, even Zeiss has huge variations. Some lens models tend to have more than others. I'd expect IS lenses to fall into that category.Also note that Cameras do show a variation, so the same lenses on different bodies give different results, eving using live view focus. There are tolerance buildups everywhere.

I think there may be some slight variation in the first batch, based on my experience, which isn't conclusive - (could be a one off). First lens I received #(000061) was soft at 70mm f/2.8, had a hazy appearance on focus area. even once calibrated with lens align2 I wasn't blown away (I had the Tamron 24-70 vc and returned it because of back focusing and poor AF quality & speed).

Even though I wasn't wowed by the first copy it, it was better than the tamron, in every way. I still returned the canon the following day, considering the price, I wanted AMAZING. I was lucky that my store had a second copy of the lens yet to be sold (000063) which they kindly exchanged.

Now I am super impressed, amazingly SHARP @ F2.8 at every zoom length across the entire frame, which is inline with what Roger at Lens rentals reports. no micro adjustment required. (after doing the usual lens align procedure).DID all sorts of exhaustive tests, and real life shots, I am wrapped with the build quality, operation, and images which come from the lens....I don't know if there is slight variation between copies, but this is my experience (first copy compared to second) and could reflect the photo zone findings.

The onion bokeh is there under certain circumstances, but its allot cleaner than that of the Tamrons, and isn't noticeable unless pixel peeping. doesn't concern me in the slightest. I think the bokeh is wonderful, very similar characteristics to the 50L1.2.lack of fringing and CA is great. colour and contrast is wonderful.

that is a little disturbing to here, even after the long delay to fix production....

download the full images, save, flip between them in a viewer, the edges look noticeably better to me from one of them (hint: the canon )

(to be fair, we don't know exactly how he focused these and that can affect things, but still in a quick real world pop snap one certainly did better)

My observations:

I'd say that the Canon has the resolution advantage in the centre, the Tamron in the extreme corners (who cares?), but Canon has much better contrast. The colour balance of the lenses is very different -the Canon is more natural than the Tamron, which is quite yellow. It's difficult to tell in these photos as they are shot at different times of the day with varying cloud cover. The Tamron has noticably less distortion than the Canon.

These shots were taken at f/9; lets compare them at f/2.8: if you want to shoot at f/9, buy a 24-105 F/4L. Sadly, Photozone doesn't have any f/2.8 shots at the same focal length. [This is something that I always find strange considering the purpose of the site, surely they'd be better to have some standard outdoor test setups for various focal length/aperture combinations?] Until some more real world samples appear, we're left with The Digital Picture's ISO 12233 chart tests:

Fine, but I always find it difficult to relate this sort of test shot to the real world and they are taken at quite close distance, which some lenses don't perform well at [see Bryan's comments about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which every user raves about (including Bryan) but underwhelms on these charts].

Hah I tried the 24-105, three copies, at f/9 and f/11 and f/8 and it sucks on FF at 24mm for finely detailed edge to edge landscapes. The samples aren't even close to the ones posted at 24mm and stopped down from the 24-70 II (or my 24 1.4 II).